The FTC is currently soliciting comments from the public as to whether they should vote to accept the consent agreement. They should not. The FTC should proceed with litigation against Brittain for the reasons below. While I am skeptical that the FTC will reverse course — the initial vote was unanimous — additional public pressure may sway the Commission.

These are, briefly, the reasons why the FTC should void the agreement and proceed with litigating its complaint against Brittain — and why you should send a brief comment of your own:

Brittain’s victims are numerous and unlikely to speak up. Comments submitted to the FTC are public. Brittain’s scheme was a gamble that victims did not want to be associated with having nude photographs of themselves. It is unlikely that victims will be willing to speak up and make a permanent and public record of that fact.

The FTC’s action is likely to deter further justice. Brittain’s scheme was successful because he bet that his victims would pay a relatively modest sum in order to avoid the embarrassment of approaching authorities or attorneys. As the FTC has now taken action, it is unlikely that any other agency — state or federal — will be motivated to hold Brittain accountable. Those who copied him, however — including a homeless man — face years in prison.

The consent agreement will do little to deter revenge porn site operators, and the consent agreement largely requires Brittain to do only what the law already requires him to do. Given victims’ fear of public criticism, it is unlikely that few are still willing to step forward to law enforcement, if they can find an agency willing to listen to them at all. While California has taken initiative to target these sites, the vast majority of local, state, and federal law enforcement often view revenge porn sites as outside their jurisdiction — if they have the resources to identify the sites’ operators at all. Site operators, in turn, now know that they can continue to extort, shutter their sites, and walk away with the profits — facing, at most, an agreement that they not do what the law already prohibits them from doing.

Public comments may be sent to the FTC up until this Monday, March 2, 2015, and can be sent online by clicking here. If you’re at a loss for words, here’s some suggested text that you can copy and paste or modify to your leisure:

I oppose the proposed consent agreement in the matter of Craig Brittain. While I applaud the Commission’s willingness to address exploitative scams like those perpetrated by Brittain, the proposed agreement permits Brittain to walk away with the profits he procured under fraudulent and extortionate pretenses. Brittain’s brazen conduct should be squarely addressed and he should be required to disgorge his profits and return them to those who believed they were hiring an attorney (or independent firm) to remove their nude photos. The proposed consent agreement does not do that. Instead, Brittain is permitted to simply agree not to do what the law already prohibits him from doing while not admitting anything at all and, worse, makes a profit. The Commission should withdraw from the agreement and take the appropriate action.

Or perhaps you disagree and think the FTC’s action is the right thing to do. The argument can certainly be made that this ensures that Brittain will not resume his site, and the FTC’s argument that the practice was deceptive puts operators on notice. Regardless, you should let the FTC know that this is an important issue.

Share this:

It’s been almost two years since we last heard from Craig Brittain, one-time proprietor of revenge porn site “Is Anybody Down?”, but he has reappeared to apologize for the harm that his site laid upon its hundreds of victims, promising to make amends by returning the payments he extorted through his fake “lawyer,” “David Blade III.”

Yesterday, revenge porn’s Craig Brittain announced on Twitter that he was ending his site, IsAnybodyDown.com (synopsis here). Many (myself included) interpreted that to mean that Brittain was shutting down his site. And with tweets like these, wouldn’t you?:

Share this:

Craig Brittain’s revenge porn site, IsAnybodyDown.com, might have been an unremarkable ripoff of Hunter Moore’s “Is Anyone Up?” site if not for “David Blade III, Esq.” Blade was an invention of Craig Brittain, a fake attorney created to add an aura of legitimacy to Brittain’s extortionate scheme: post nude photos along with full names, social media profiles, and phone numbers, then charge victims $250 to have them removed.

Nor was “David Blade” Brittain’s only only online impersonation. I theorized that Brittain’s efforts went a step further: pretend to be a Craigslist user arranging a sexual encounter, then take the photos and post them to IsAnybodyDown. That theory proved true when CBS Denver turned up emails bearing Brittain’s IP address, showing that he pretended to be a “Jess Davis” to solicit nude photos, using the photos of one of his victims.

But allegations in a 2005 harassment charge and restraining order naming Brittain are unsurprisingly predictive of his future behavior: impersonating people on the internet in an effort to harm women online and offline.

Share this:

Are your nude photos posted on IsAnybodyDown.com or YouGotPosted.com? If so, I’d like to talk with you. I’ve written critically about both sites here and I am interested in finding out additional information about the sites, including more about how they get their pictures, how they respond to takedown requests, and the experience you’ve had as a result of being posted.

Anonymity guaranteed. I won’t reveal any identifying information without your permission or a lawful order (e.g., a subpoena).

Please note that I am not a lawyer and can’t help get your pictures removed. Another site has posted some tips on how to get pictures removed, but I can’t vouch for whether following its advice would be successful or legally prudent. I highly recommend that you contact an attorney.

[Update: Chance Trahan responds at length [PDF]. He denies running the site and says that talking about him is cybersquatting, among other things. More below.]

[Update 1/7/2013: Chance deleted the above post (though here’s a copy [PDF]) and replaced it with a new response. It’s a copy/paste of this post edited to tell his side of the story. Chance Trahan says that the “David Blade” / “Takedown Hammer” site is, alternatively, a “parody” or a “third party hiree.” Chance says he only designed the site, its logos, and created its Facebook account — the idea and content are Craig’s. Chance also maintains his claim that speaking negatively about or to him (without his permission) is “harassment” and “cybersquatting,” and that those criticizing him were hired to do so. Chance also commented on this post, below]

Share this:

With news outlets starting to pick up the IsAnybodyDown story (an overview is here) — among them Ars Technica and the Daily Dot — one misconception should be headed off at the pass: the site’s creators are not likely to be shielded from liability by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

But IsAnybodyDown.com’s creators are American. The site was started by Craig Brittain of Colorado Springs (now living in Phoenix) and Chance Trahan of Tempe, Arizona, though Chance denies that he “runs” the site, insisting that he is only a freelance artist.